Chapter 11 — Species of Special Concern 



Steller sea lions should include all major rookery 

 areas and sufficient forage habitat around those areas 

 to allow successful breeding and pup rearing. 



On 20 July 1990, the National Marine Fisheries 

 Service published a proposed rule to designate the 

 Steller sea lion as threatened under the Endangered 

 Species Act and to enact protective measures to 

 replace those in the emergency rule. The final rule 

 was published on 26 November 1990 and, in the 4 

 December 1990 Federal Register, the Fish and Wild- 

 life Service announced the addition of the Steller sea 

 lion to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wild- 

 life. In the 26 November 1990 rule, the National 

 Marine Fisheries Service stated a number of reasons 

 why the Steller sea lion was being listed as threatened 

 rather than endangered. The Service noted that: 

 (1) there is no basis for considering animals in differ- 

 ent geographic regions as separate populations (there- 

 fore the status of the species as a whole must be 

 considered); (2) there are areas in the species' range 

 where abundance has been stable; and (3) preliminary 

 results of counts done in 1990 appeared similar to 

 those done in 1989, suggesting that the decline may 

 have slowed or stopped. 



Also during 1990, the Steller Sea Lion Recovery 

 Team met four times. The principal activity of the 

 recovery team was to prepare a recovery plan, which 

 it completed in draft form and provided to the Na- 

 tional Marine Fisheries Service. 



Late in March 1991, the Service sent the Com- 

 mission a copy of the Technical Draft Steller Sea Lion 

 Recovery Plan prepared by the Recovery Team. The 

 plan recommended "immediate actions... to reduce 

 human-caused mortality to the lowest level practica- 

 ble, protection of important habitats through buffer 

 zones and other means, and enhancement of popula- 

 tion productivity by ensuring that there is an ample 

 food supply available." To implement these objec- 

 tives, the draft plan presented several recommended 

 research and conservation actions, including: (1) iden- 

 tifying habitat requirements and protecting areas of 

 special biological significance; (2) identifying manage- 

 ment stocks; (3) monitoring the status and trends of 

 the species; (4) monitoring the health, condition, and 

 vital parameters of the species; (5) assessing and 



minimizing the causes of mortality; (6) investigating 

 feeding ecology and factors affecting energetic status; 

 and (7) implementing the recovery plan and coordi- 

 nating recovery activities. 



On 11 April 1991, the Recovery Team also recom- 

 mended that the National Marine Fisheries Service 

 designate critical habitat for Steller sea lions at major 

 rookeries and haulout sites throughout Alaska, Wash- 

 ington, Oregon, and California. The Recovery Team 

 also identified sites in British Columbia and the Kuril 

 Islands for inclusion in the critical habitat designation 

 and recommended that the National Marine Fisheries 

 Service, through the State Department, work with the 

 Governments of Canada and the Soviet Union to 

 protect Steller sea lion habitat. 



On 13 May 1991, the Commission provided com- 

 ments to the National Marine Fisheries Service on the 

 draft plan. The Commission recommended that the 

 Service complete and adopt the plan as quickly as 

 possible and that the Service initiate efforts immedi- 

 ately to implement the plan. The Commission further 

 recommended that the Service take steps to: (1) ap- 

 point or hire a full-time Steller sea lion coordinator; 

 (2) reconvene the Recovery Team to solicit advice on 

 actions that the Service should undertake in the 

 coming year as matters of highest priority, given 

 available funding and personnel resources; and (3) 

 develop an implementation plan and strategy to assign 

 priorities and foster the involvement of other appro- 

 priate agencies and groups in implementing recovery 

 actions. The Commission also recommended that the 

 Service convene a separate recovery plan implemen- 

 tation team composed of representatives of relevant 

 agencies and groups to assist in developing and 

 directing plan implementation. 



On 15 July 1991, the Commission wrote to the 

 National Marine Fisheries Service inquiring about the 

 status of the recovery plan and actions on the Recov- 

 ery Team's critical habitat recommendations. The 

 Service responded on 1 August 1991, noting that the 

 Commission's comments, as well as other comments 

 on the draft recovery plan, had been forwarded to the 

 chairman of the Recovery Team for review and 

 discussion at its sixth meeting, scheduled for 15-16 

 August 1991. The Service also noted that it was 



27 



